AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f facts are as under : The Petitioner is an individual and is regularly assessed to the tax. He had filed return of income for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-2013 before the appropriate Assessing Officer at Mumbai. It appears that one Ranka Jewellers Group, was subjected to search and seizure operation by the Income Tax Department. The said group of assessees was being assessed by the Assessing Officer under the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The Petitioner was visited with a show cause notice dated 21st January, 2017 issued by the department in which he was conveyed the proposal for transferring his assessments in following terms : "Sub : Centralization of your case to DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-2(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for fixing another date of hearing. On this communication itself, a remark was put by the officer stating that next date of hearing is fixed on 5th June, 2017. On 4th June, 2017 the Petitioner in warded a letter in department reiterating his objections to the transfer of assessments and stated that if the authority still has any reservation, a personal hearing may be given. Admittedly, on 5th June, 2017 no one remained present on behalf of the Petitioner for personal hearing. Thereupon, the Principal Commissioner, Mumbai, passed the impugned order. 5. Appearing for the Petitioner learned Counsel Shri Patni raised the following contentions : (i) The impugned order was passed in breach of the principle of natural justice. The show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be stated in any precise words or any particular format. As long as the concurrence can be culled out from the record, the same would be sufficient compliance to the requirement of Section 127 of the Act. 8. At the outset, we may record that when the assessment of an Assessee is being transferred from one Commissionerate to another, the requirement of hearing and following the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in the statutory provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. Several courts have taken such a view. It is not necessary to load this judgment with all such pronouncements. Reference to a decision of this Court in case of Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Sharda Sabhagruha, S.P.College Campus, Pune V/s. The Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court in an another decision in the case of Sahara Hospitality Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 and Ors., dated 12 th September, 2012 in Writ Petition No.596 of 2012. 10. Neither of these decisions nor other decisions placed before us by the Counsel for the Petitioner, however, lays down the proposition in law that such requirement of hearing would include personal hearing. However, in facts of the present case, we are not inclined to test the impugned order on this ground, since admittedly the Department had offered such personal hearing, which the Petitioner did not avail of. We have noted that initially personal hearing was fixed on 16th May, 2017. The Petitioner conveyed his unavailability on said date and sought an adjournme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed u/s. 132(4) of the Act has admitted tht by using the bank and Demat accounts of the entry providers, has systematically provided bogus exempt LTCG entry to Ranka Jewellers Group and other beneficiaries. Further Shir Abhinandan Suresh Jain has in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act accepted the fact that Naresh M. Jain inflated the scrip price of Risa International Ltd., with connivance of other operators. The mediators Shri Bhupesh Harishchandra Rathod and Rakesh H. Shah have accepted in their recorded statements that they provided signed cheques and other documents related to bank accounts and demat accounts of the entry providers to Naresh M. Jain for certain commission. The statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act is itself....